daily_brief

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a basic statement by detailing exactly what health checks are performed (environment, errdisabled interfaces, uptime, MLAG, syslog alerts) and the output format (CRITICAL/WARNING/OK per device with summary). It also explains the time-window behavior via 'since_hours' and the target selection default. Some gaps remain (e.g., read-only nature, concurrency via max_workers), but overall it is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and efficient. The opening sentence immediately conveys the purpose, followed by a concise list of checks, the output format, and target selection. There is no fluff or redundancy; every sentence contributes useful information. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description is comprehensive for a health-check brief tool: it explains the checks, output statuses, time window, and target selection. It leaves some gaps (e.g., meaning of config_path and max_workers, explicit read-only guarantee), but given the output schema likely defines return structure and the checklist of checks is detailed, it is largely complete for typical usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain three parameters: 'hostnames' and 'tags' as target selectors, and 'since_hours' as the time window. However, 'config_path' and 'max_workers' are left unexplained both in the schema and description, leaving their purpose ambiguous. The description adds value for the majority but doesn't fully cover all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the primary action ('Run health checks on EOS devices') and the deliverable ('return a Markdown daily brief'). It enumerates specific checks (environment, errdisabled, uptime, MLAG, syslog alerts) and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'health_check' by focusing on a comprehensive daily summary rather than a single health check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for using the tool: it's a daily brief, with target selection via 'hostnames'/'tags' and a default of all devices. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'health_check' or 'get_device_facts', nor does it state exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.